CATO Institute: Marriage Equality for All Couples

For those that don't know, the CATO Institute is one of the more respected Conservative/Libertarian think tanks out there. John D. Podesta is founder and president of the Center for American Progress. Robert A. Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute. These are there thoughts on gay marriage.

*****************************************
Nearly a century after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.' " That 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, ended bans on interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had such laws.

Now, 43 years after Loving, the courts are once again grappling with denial of equal marriage rights — this time to gay couples. We believe that a society respectful of individual liberty must end this unequal treatment under the law.

Toward that goal, we have agreed to co-chair the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The foundation helped launch the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which is currently before a federal district court in California but is likely to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is not about politics; it's about an indispensable right vested in all Americans.
The Perry case — scheduled for closing arguments next Wednesday — was brought by two couples whose relationships are marked by the sort of love, commitment and respect that leads naturally to marriage. Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and their four children, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, ask for no more, and deserve no less, than the equal rights accorded to every other American family. But they are blocked from obtaining marriage licenses under California's Proposition 8.

The plaintiffs' legal team, headed by former Bush v. Gore antagonists Theodore Olson and David Boies, has demonstrated that no good reason exists for the denial of fundamental civil rights under Proposition 8. We support that position.

Although we serve, respectively, as president of a progressive and chairman of a libertarian think tank, we are not joining the foundation's advisory board to present a "bipartisan" front. Rather, we have come together in a nonpartisan fashion because the principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation's character. This is not about politics; it's about an indispensable right vested in all Americans.

Over more than two centuries, minorities in America have gradually experienced greater freedom and been subjected to fewer discriminatory laws. But that process unfolded with great difficulty.

As the country evolved, the meaning of one small word — "all" — has evolved as well. Our nation's Founders reaffirmed in the Declaration of Independence the self-evident truth that "all Men are created equal," and our Pledge of Allegiance concludes with the simple and definitive words "liberty and justice for all." Still, we have struggled mightily since our independence, often through our courts, to ensure that liberty and justice is truly available to all Americans.

Thanks to the genius of our Framers, who separated power among three branches of government, our courts have been able to take the lead — standing up to enforce equal protection, as demanded by the Constitution — even when the executive and legislative branches, and often the public as well, were unwilling to confront wrongful discrimination.

Indeed, the Supreme Court issued its Loving ruling in the face of widespread opposition. A Gallup poll taken within months of the decision found that 74 percent of the American public "disapproved" of interracial marriage. Nevertheless, the court vindicated those constitutional rights to which every American is entitled. As we look back, the Loving decision is hailed as an example of the best in American jurisprudence.

In terms of public opinion, courts addressing marriage equality have less of a hill to climb. Opposition to same-sex marriage pales next to the intense hostility the court faced before its ruling in Loving. A February Post poll showed 47 percent support for same-sex marriage (up from 37 percent support in the same poll in 2003). The Post poll also showed that the younger an individual is, the more likely he or she is to favor marriage equality, regardless of political persuasion. Among individuals ages 18 to 29, an estimated 65 percent support marriage equality.

Our history will soon be written by young people who are seizing the reins from the baby boomers. They seem prepared to reject laws that serve no purpose other than to deny two committed and loving individuals the right to join in a mutually reinforcing marital relationship.

The decision in Perry depends, of course, on values far more permanent and important than opinion polls. No less than the constitutional rights of millions of Americans are at stake. But the public appears to be catching up with the Constitution. Just a little more leadership from the courts would be the perfect prescription for a free society.

I love the argument of the Pandora's Box effect if gay marriage is legalized. It has no basis in reality.

How many countries where gay marriage is legal, are they pushing for polygamy, incest, etc? I haven't done the math, but if I round up it looks like zero.

Do yourself a favor and go back and look at the deviant acts predicted for the future when Prohibition ended. Literally none of it happened. There has never been a real push for any of the things mentioned by opponents, and acting like legalizing gay marriage will suddenly make people protest for what they never did before is just absurd.

Originally Posted by Ax

Trying to legitimize their lifestyle by being able to refer to it as a "marriage" is where I jump ship.

To gays, it is normal. So because you don't think it's normal, you should get to decide what they can and can't have? What if a gay president got elected and decided to make the same decision for you and said he didn't approve of your lifestyle?

Just because it's your opinion, it doesn't mean it's what's right. And since it's not illegal to be openly gay, their lifestyle is already legitimized

I have come to the conclusion that he pretty much masks the real agenda across the board.

Heard an interesting snippet yesterday from a Hollywood semi-star to the effect that his friends who are big Obama donors pass to him that they are privately being told things that run directly opposite to what is being put out to the public in terms of the "agenda". I thought this was the case from Day 1. I wonder if folks are going to get past the personality to really understand what's been in play.

I have come to the conclusion that he pretty much masks the real agenda across the board.

I think he's failed miserably. I see him as pretty transparent. He wants to increase dependency on the federal government. I'm amazed anyone cannot see through him. He is a typical, liberal, politician. Which to me, makes him a bigger liar than most, since his platform of "Hope & Change" has been, "More of The Same". With no record of accomplishment to run on, he ran on, and was elected as, "a different kind of politician". And he has monumentally failed. He is everything he said he was not. He's typical, liberal, and partisan. If for no other reason that, he should be voted out in a laugher. He's a phony of epic proportion.

Heard an interesting snippet yesterday from a Hollywood semi-star to the effect that his friends who are big Obama donors pass to him that they are privately being told things that run directly opposite to what is being put out to the public in terms of the "agenda". I thought this was the case from Day 1.

And yet, many who know they screwed up by voting for him the last time, will double down anyway, rather than admit being wrong. Some will even believe it.

I wonder if folks are going to get past the personality to really understand what's been in play.

I don't even understand the attraction to his personality. He's a stuck up know-it-all that don't know squat.

Except how to buy votes. He's Warren Buffet when it comes to that.

0000

"Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and **** the prom queen"

West Virginia couple Annie and Josh, engaged to be married, revealed they are cousins. A relative then chimed in that the family “believes in incest.” In fact, the family expressed frustration not that the couple were blood relatives, but that they were living together pre-marriage.

In gypsy culture, apparently, incest is acceptable but “living in sin” is frowned upon.

Will there be an Incest Pride March?

0000

"Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and **** the prom queen"

First cousins are legally allowed to marry in something like 26 states. And I don't think any state would fail to recognize a marriage between first cousins. I don't think any employee could legally prevent married cousins from getting the same benefits as other married people.

Cousins who want to marry have far fewer hurdles to jump than gay couples.

First cousins are legally allowed to marry in something like 26 states. And I don't think any state would fail to recognize a marriage between first cousins. I don't think any employee could legally prevent married cousins from getting the same benefits as other married people.

Cousins who want to marry have far fewer hurdles to jump than gay couples.

So, if consenting 1st cousins can marry, then why not brother-sister, father-daughter. As consenting adults, aren't their "civil rights" being violated? Incest is incest.

If the argument is that two consenting adults, in love, should be allowed to marry, how is it a civil rights violation to disallow one, and not the other?

0000

"Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and **** the prom queen"

So, if consenting 1st cousins can marry, then why not brother-sister, father-daughter. As consenting adults, aren't their "civil rights" being violated? Incest is incest.

If the argument is that two consenting adults, in love, should be allowed to marry, how is it a civil rights violation to disallow one, and not the other?

yes...an interesting question indeed. or the larger question - what goes for normative standards these days? far as I can tell...there are none. which also raises interesting implications vis obligations and other matters

So, if consenting 1st cousins can marry, then why not brother-sister, father-daughter. As consenting adults, aren't their "civil rights" being violated? Incest is incest.

If the argument is that two consenting adults, in love, should be allowed to marry, how is it a civil rights violation to disallow one, and not the other?

Ax, the slippery-slope fallacy commonly employed in this discussion is completely laid bare here. First cousins have been allowed to marry in this country since it's creation. That has not led to the legality of incest. In fact, first cousin marriage is less common now than it used to be.

It's legal in half of our states, all of Europe, Canada, Mexico, all of South America and Australia, as well as much of Africa. The stigma you place on it is simply not as strong as you think it is. The fact that you compare it to a brother-sister relationship, or that you think Foxnews somehow broke some sort of groundbreaking story revealing the further erosion of our moral foundation does not suddenly make that the case.

Burnerâ€™s Burning Questions: Free Agency, Mocks, Camps, OTAs, Roster Predictions, 2019
Greetings from BBQ to everyone in BGO land and guests from social media â€“ we hope you become a member here.
...

Burnerâ€™s Burning Questions: Free Agency, Mocks, Camps, OTAs, Roster Predictions, 2019
Greetings from BBQ to everyone in BGO land and guests from social media â€“ we hope you become a member here.
...

Burnerâ€™s Burning Questions: Free Agency, Mocks, Camps, OTAs, Roster Predictions, 2019
Greetings from BBQ to everyone in BGO land and guests from social media â€“ we hope you become a member here.
...